Re: Non-Perl TAP implementations

[A. Pagaltzis]

* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-18 03:15]:
> Tracking the results in an object is a better choice than
> scraping from a print buffer.

If that were universally true, we wouldn’t have plaintext network
protocols, would we? And I think making TAP a protocol instead of
an API was the right choice.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // 

Re: Non-Perl TAP implementations

[chromatic]

On Monday 17 April 2006 18:50, Ovid wrote:

> The only problem I see with that is the occasional buffering errors I
> see on my Mac where the STDERR and STDOUT don't line up.

Agreed.  Is it too late to send everything to STDOUT where it belongs?

-- c

Re: Non-Perl TAP implementations

[Ovid]

--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a lot of reasons why having separate testing and analysis
> processes are very good and there are a lot of reasons why having
> file-based communication is very, very good.

OK, you raise some good points.  Then by relying on the output and
scraping that while the tests are running (instead of afterwards), we
could still get many of the benefits folks want (such as GUI test
runners, colored tests, etc.) and they should be easy to implement.

The only problem I see with that is the occasional buffering errors I
see on my Mac where the STDERR and STDOUT don't line up.

Cheers,
Ovid

-- 
If this message is a response to a question on a mailing list, please send 
follow up questions to the list.

Web Programming with Perl -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/

Re: Non-Perl TAP implementations

[chromatic]

On Monday 17 April 2006 18:09, Ovid wrote:

> Tracking the results in an object is a better choice than scraping from
> a print buffer.  One of the frustrating issues with Perl's testing
> tools is the limited flexibility we have due to reading the output from
> STDOUT.

... an object of which TAP-supporting language?
... from STDOUT on which computer?
... is it really STDOUT?
... can you actually run code on the remote machine?
... can you replay the object?
... can you serialize the object for later?
... can you provide a default language-independent object that supports all of 
the TAP features you want to exercise with the implementation of a 
programming language you've never seen before?
... or one that no one has written yet?

There are a lot of reasons why having separate testing and analysis processes 
are very good and there are a lot of reasons why having file-based 
communication is very, very good.

-- c

Re: Non-Perl TAP implementations

[Tyler MacDonald]

Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tracking the results in an object is a better choice than scraping from
> a print buffer.  One of the frustrating issues with Perl's testing
> tools is the limited flexibility we have due to reading the output from
> STDOUT.

I like that aspect about TAP... it's simple, humans and machines can
read it easily, and there's no reason why it has to be langauge-specific. I
think the only thing that could make it better would be if TAP output was
parseable by YAML. :-) 

> we should at least publish an EBNF grammar for the output.

Definately!  

- Tyler

Re: Non-Perl TAP implementations

[Ovid]

--- Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Since it looks like we're going to stick with reading information
> from
> > a print buffer, we should at least publish an EBNF grammar for the
> > output.
> 
> Patches welcome!

OK, I've a bunch of TPF stuff I'm wrapping up, but if I have some tuits
soon, I'll see what I can put together.
 
> > (Interestingly, if we did that, we could potentially
> > incorporate that into Test::Harness and allow folks to provide
> their
> > own grammars and thus structure the output to better suit their
> needs.
> 
> Patches less welcome! :-)

You're hurtin' me, Andy, you're hurtin' me ;)

Cheers,
Ovid

-- 
If this message is a response to a question on a mailing list, please send 
follow up questions to the list.

Web Programming with Perl -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/

Re: prove users: Please test P/PE/PETDANCE/Test-Harness-2.57_04.tar.gz

[Andy Lester]

On Apr 17, 2006, at 8:14 PM, James E Keenan wrote:

Here is a portion of the output of 'prove -vb t/test-harness.t'.   
Is it what you would expect?


The big thing that's a question is in globbing of files on the  
command line.


--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: prove users: Please test P/PE/PETDANCE/Test-Harness-2.57_04.tar.gz

[James E Keenan]

Andy Lester wrote:
I'm about to release T::H 2.58, but I have a pretty big difference in  
how globbing is done in prove, per Audrey.


Please download and try it out on your box and make sure it's all good.




One warning thrown, apparently in t/00compile.t.  37 tests skipped for 
"various reasons" in t/test-harness.t.  Installed okay.


[Test-Harness-2.57_04] 514 $ make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/local/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" 
"test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t
t/00compile.# Testing Test::Harness 2.57_04 under Perl 5.008007 
and Test::More 0.42
t/00compile.ok 1/6Argument "2.57_04" isn't numeric in subroutine 
entry at t/lib/Test/More.pm line 670
t/00compile.ok 

t/assertok 

t/base..ok 

t/callback..ok 

t/from_line.ok 

t/harness...ok 

t/inc_taint.ok 

t/nonumbers.ok 

t/okok 

t/pod...ok 

t/point-parse...ok 

t/point.ok 

t/prove-globbingok 

t/prove-switchesok 

t/strap-analyze.ok 

t/strap.ok 

t/test-harness..ok 


37/216 skipped: various reasons
t/version...ok 


All tests successful, 37 subtests skipped.
Files=18, Tests=569, 16 wallclock secs ( 7.05 cusr +  4.13 csys = 11.18 CPU)

Here is a portion of the output of 'prove -vb t/test-harness.t'.  Is it 
what you would expect?


[Test-Harness-2.57_04] 517 $ prove -vb t/test-harness.t
t/test-harness1..216
# bailout
ok 1
ok 2 # skip don't apply to a bailout
ok 3 # skip don't apply to a bailout
ok 4 # skip don't apply to a bailout
ok 5 # skip don't apply to a bailout
ok 6 # skip don't apply to a bailout
ok 7 # skip don't apply to a bailout
ok 8 - bailout - No warnings
# bignum
Confused test output: test 4 answered after test 136211425
ok 9 # skip special tests for bailout
ok 10
ok 11 - bignum - all ok
ok 12 - bignum - has total
ok 13 - bignum - totals
ok 14 - bignum - failed
ok 15
ok 16 - bignum - Got proper warnings
# bignum_many
Confused test output: test 4 answered after test 7
Confused test output: test 5 answered after test 8
Confused test output: test 6 answered after test 9
Confused test output: test 7 answered after test 10
Confused test output: test 8 answered after test 11
Confused test output: test 9 answered after test 12
Confused test output: test 10 answered after test 13
Confused test output: test 11 answered after test 14
ok 17 # skip special tests for bailout
ok 18
ok 19 - bignum_many - all ok
ok 20 - bignum_many - has total
ok 21 - bignum_many - totals
ok 22 - bignum_many - failed
ok 23
ok 24 - bignum_many - Got proper warnings

jimk

Re: Non-Perl TAP implementations

[Andy Lester]

Since it looks like we're going to stick with reading information from
a print buffer, we should at least publish an EBNF grammar for the
output.


Patches welcome!


(Interestingly, if we did that, we could potentially
incorporate that into Test::Harness and allow folks to provide their
own grammars and thus structure the output to better suit their needs.


Patches less welcome! :-)

--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: Non-Perl TAP implementations

[Ovid]

--- David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Test.Simple—JavaScript. It looks and acts just like tap, although in 
> reality it's tracking test results in an object rather than scraping 
> them from a print buffer.
> 
>http://openjsan.org/doc/t/th/theory/Test/Simple/

Tracking the results in an object is a better choice than scraping from
a print buffer.  One of the frustrating issues with Perl's testing
tools is the limited flexibility we have due to reading the output from
STDOUT.

The TAP output should really just be for humans.  It should also be
reconfigurable, but obviously we can't do that because Test::Harness
would choke.

Since it looks like we're going to stick with reading information from
a print buffer, we should at least publish an EBNF grammar for the
output.  (Interestingly, if we did that, we could potentially
incorporate that into Test::Harness and allow folks to provide their
own grammars and thus structure the output to better suit their needs. 
Of course, I would like a Ponie with that, too).

Cheers,
Ovid

-- 
If this message is a response to a question on a mailing list, please send 
follow up questions to the list.

Web Programming with Perl -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/

Re: prove users: Please test P/PE/PETDANCE/Test-Harness-2.57_04.tar.gz

[David H. Adler]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 01:55:59PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> I'm about to release T::H 2.58, but I have a pretty big difference in  
> how globbing is done in prove, per Audrey.
> 
> Please download and try it out on your box and make sure it's all good.

Tests fine on OS X 10.4.6/perl 5.8.7

dha

-- 
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
Alaska is a large cold place with approximately six residents who
would inbreed if they found each other more attractive.
  - Scott Adams

prove users: Please test P/PE/PETDANCE/Test-Harness-2.57_04.tar.gz

[Andy Lester]

I'm about to release T::H 2.58, but I have a pretty big difference in  
how globbing is done in prove, per Audrey.


Please download and try it out on your box and make sure it's all good.

Thanks!
xoox,
Andy

Begin forwarded message:


From: PAUSE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: April 17, 2006 1:53:40 PM CDT
To: "Andy Lester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: CPAN Upload: P/PE/PETDANCE/Test-Harness-2.57_04.tar.gz
Reply-To: cpan-testers@perl.org

The uploaded file

Test-Harness-2.57_04.tar.gz

has entered CPAN as

  file: $CPAN/authors/id/P/PE/PETDANCE/Test-Harness-2.57_04.tar.gz
  size: 68319 bytes
   md5: 4c655fe92cbf742c43ec9f8323b5c0cb

No action is required on your part
Request entered by: PETDANCE (Andy Lester)
Request entered on: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:52:05 GMT
Request completed:  Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:53:40 GMT

Thanks,
--
paused, v460



--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: Non-Perl TAP implementations

[David Wheeler]

On Apr 17, 2006, at 06:03, Andy Lester wrote:

Can you please give me a short couple of sentences on it for  
someone who has no idea how/why you'd use TAP outside of Perl?


It's a direct port of Test::Builder, ::Simple, and ::More, along with  
a harness for showing test results in a browser. What am I missing in  
terms of explanation?


D

Re: Non-Perl TAP implementations

[Geoffrey Young]

Andy Lester wrote:
> 
> I'm adding a section to Test::Harness::TAP on non-Perl TAP.
> 
> http://svn.perl.org/modules/Test-Harness/trunk/lib/Test/Harness/TAP.pod
> 
> If you know of one, please send me some text to add.

all the big PHP players now produce TAP

  o phpt (outputs TAP by default as of the yet-to-be-released PEAR 1.5.0)

  http://pear.php.net/PEAR


  o PHPUnit has a TAP logger (since 2.3.4)

  http://www.phpunit.de/wiki/Main_Page


  o there's a third-party TAP reporting extension for SimpleTest

http://www.digitalsandwich.com/archives/51-Updated-Simpletest+Apache-Test.html


  o Apache-Test's PHP writes TAP by default and includes the standalone
test-more.php

  http://search.cpan.org/dist/Apache-Test/


there's also libtap (written in C)

  http://jc.ngo.org.uk/trac-bin/trac.cgi/wiki/LibTap

HTH

--Geoff

Re: Non-Perl TAP implementations

[Andy Lester]

Test.Simple—JavaScript. It looks and acts just like tap, although  
in reality it's tracking test results in an object rather than  
scraping them from a print buffer.


  http://openjsan.org/doc/t/th/theory/Test/Simple/


Can you please give me a short couple of sentences on it for someone  
who has no idea how/why you'd use TAP outside of Perl?


--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: Non-Perl TAP implementations

[Andy Lester]

How non-Perl do you want?  Does the Perl 6 version of Test.pm or
Test::Builder/Test::More count?  How about the Parrot versions?


Sure, lemme have 'em.

--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: [OT] TDD + Pair Programming

[Adrian Howard]

Hi all,

On 2 Apr 2006, at 01:04, Jeffrey Thalhammer wrote:


I have never actually had an opportunity to practice
this, but I've always felt that the most obvious way
to combine test-driven development with pair
programming was to have one person write test code
while the other person writes application code.
Presumably they might change roles periodically, but
I'm not sure if they would actually work at the same
terimnal.  However, I've never heard anyone
excplicitly advocate for this approach.  Is this
actually happening and I'm just not aware of it?  Or
is there some obstacle to this approach that I haven't
considered?


Very belated response. Using Easter as an opportunity to catch up on  
my huge e-mail mountain :-)


Just to throw a contrary opinion into the mix I've found this to be a  
very effective technique. So have other people. Google around for  
"ping pong development". See  for example. Making the test pass/fail to be  
a competition between the pair and changing the driver regularly seem  
to be the points that can make it work well.


Absolutely do it at the same terminal though if at all possible.  
Remote pairing is nowhere near as effective as co-located pairing.


Cheers,

Adrian